Telechat Review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17
review-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17-genart-telechat-carpenter-2016-10-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 19)
Type Telechat Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2016-10-25
Requested 2016-10-13
Draft last updated 2016-10-21
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -16 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -17 by Brian Carpenter (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Nevil Brownlee (diff)
Rtgdir Early review of -16 by Les Ginsberg (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -06 by Giles Heron (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Brian Carpenter
State Completed
Review review-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17-genart-telechat-carpenter-2016-10-21
Reviewed rev. 17 (document currently at 19)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2016-10-21

Review
review-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17-genart-telechat-carpenter-2016-10-21

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-l3sm-l3vpn-service-model-17.txt
Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
Review Date: 2016-10-21
IETF LC End Date: 2016-10-11
IESG Telechat date: 2016-10-27

Summary: Almost ready
--------

Comments:
---------

Thanks for responding to my LC comments. I have not checked the details of the yang.

Minor Issues:
-------------

This is a point I missed originally but I mentioned it during the discussion:
The model says:

      | | |   | | +--rw match-flow
      | | |   | |   +--rw dscp?        inet:dscp
      | | |   | |   +--rw tos?         uint8

but tos was obsoleted when dscp was defined by RFC 2474. I don't think
you should include tos. You don't mention ECN, which are the two bits
from tos that are not included in dscp. Those bits are no good for flow
matching because they are variable.  If an operator tries to use the 8 TOS
bits for flow matching but a user supports ECN, the matching will not work
consistently. So I think it's misleading to include this.